Steven Carr

According to Paul in Romans 10, people could not be expected to believe in Jesus, until Christian preachers had been sent to tell people about him.

So the reason people did not follow Jesus in his lifetime was that they had never heard of him.

aa5874

Once you claim that the Jesus story cannot be proven or dis-proven then YOUR STORY is pointless.

You really have no way of knowing that YOUR JESUS STORY was likely to evolve as you claim.

But, it is almost certain, based on the extant EVIDENCE or sources of antiquity that there was NO character or entity known as JESUS the Christ that was the offspring of the Holy Ghost and a VIRGIN, who was the Creator of HEAVEN and Earth, that walked on water, transfigured, was raised from the dead and ascended through some clouds which was worshiped as a God by Jews with the power to forgive the sins of Jews and all mankind in the 1st century before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

And if JESUS was described as ONLY a magician perhaps almost the whole of Samaria would have followed him like they followed Simon Magus, the magician and Holy One of God.

Examine "First Apology" by Justin Martyr

"First Apology" XXVI It would appear that if you were a great magician and called yourself a god that you would probably have a lot of fans in antiquity but not the Jews, they only worshiped and was commanded to worship ONE GOD.

Ex 20:3 -

bacht

I just took a look at Romans, Corinthians and Galatians. There is the famous passage about the gifts of the spirit in 1 Cor, but there's no detail about specific incidents of miracles or healings.

Considering the amount of ink Paul spills on himself and his credentials, it's surprising there aren't more 'special' events mentioned. Instead he talks about his trials and tribulations, including the infamous basket case (2 Cor). But his challenge of Apollos includes no mention of supernaturalism.

The only passage in the Catholic epistles that seems supernatural is the modest Transfiguration scene in 2 Peter. John is mystical, talking about the witnesses of the "Spirit, the water and the blood" but no mention of mundane miracles.

Paul seems to have had a higher public profile than the other writers, though if James was in fact James the Just then he may have enjoyed some sort of status in Jerusalem. If Paul is any guide it would seem the early Christians were God-fearing gentile members of diaspora synagogues.

Acts is a separate issue, probably later than the epistles, and likely building on the Markan gospel story and its variants.

show_no_mercy

I don't know if that's true. Maybe he was kind, but in order to get crucified in Rome, Jesus would have had to have been emulating the person he was named after.

aa5874

There is no evidence to support a high profile Paul. In fact, just based on the Epistles alone, it would appear NO CHURCH WRITER knew what "Paul" wrote, the origin of writings under the name of Paul or there was a deliberate attempt to mislead.

And based on Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writers, it could not be that early JESUS believers were FIRST Gentiles but JEWS.

The Pauline writers admitted they PERSECUTED JESUS believers BEFORE they preached the FAITH and that there were people in Christ BEFORE them.

It MUST be chronologically logical just based on the information in the Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles, that if Saul/Paul was persecuting Jews that believed in Jesus before he was converted and that Saul/Paul was LATER converted and then preached to Gentiles that the FIRST EARLY JESUS believers were Jews, NOT Gentiles, in the NT Canon.

Also, based on Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings JEWS were the FIRST JESUS believers but claimed, contrary to the revelations of Jesus, that CIRCUMCISION was still necessary for SALVATION. It was SAUL/PAUL who LATER claimed Circumcision was NOT necessary.

See Galatians 5:2 - It is a complete FALLACY that Gentiles were the earliest Jesus believers even from apologetic sources.

bacht

I'm surprised to see you quoting Acts as if it were reliable history

I was talking about Paul's letters, where he makes a point of assigning himself to the gentiles, and claims to have been abused by Jewish authorities. The other epistles are labelled as Jewish writings aimed at Jews, for what that's worth.

We all know that the official story places the origin of Christianity in Jewish circles, but it's not a proven fact is it? What's so outlandish about seeing gentile synagogue members as the originators?

You take all the fun out of this game aa

aa5874

I am surprised you are talking about the Pauline letters as if they are reliable history.

Saul/Paul in Acts of the Apostles was the author of ALL the Pauline letters.

I am surprised that you use the Pauline letters as self-corroborative sources even though it has been deduced more than one person wrote under the name of Paul.

We all know that there is no extant historical EVIDENCE in antiquity whatsoever for gentile synagogue members as the originators even Paul claimed he was a Hebrew of Hebrews.

And, the Pauline writers, if you reject Acts, will claim they persecuted the Church in Christ in Judaea.

The Pauline writers will SURPRISE you.

Galatians 1.20-24 But, I am having lots of fun reading your excuses for supporting early Pauline writings without any supporting Evidence from antiquity, even the Pauline writers contradict you.

mountainman

Starks demographics are based firmly on wishful apologetic conjecture since we have absolutely no elements of objective evidence of any kind out in the open during the epoch of the 1st (and further the 2nd, and 3rd centuries.)

This is the material of fairytales which were first published as 4th century dogma in connection with the "Official Launch" of the NT on a widespread scale. These assertions are best classified as "transcendental".

Johnny Skeptic

Yes we do. Stark used archaeological evidence to show that evidence of Christianity during the first several centuries was very minimal. He also used papyrological evidence to show that the Christian presence during the first several centuries was very miminal. Have you read the book? Stark's bibliography in the back of the book is extensive. Stark is a careful researcher. He has written many books, has a Ph.D. in sociology, and has taught sociology in college.

Consider the following:

http://www.christianbook.com/the-ris...77015/pd/7710X

You do not have any idea what you are talking about.

mountainman

Johnny have you looked at these very minimal epigraphic and/or achaeological citations one by one carefully? Are there any epigraphic and/or achaeological citations not dealt with here?

Have you looked at these very minimal papyri citations one by one carefully? Are there any papyri citations not dealt with here?

Although I have not yet read Starks book, I have read books which cite Stark (such as Robin Lane-Fox) and I have read books which I know Stark has cited --- and in particular The Christians for Christians Inscriptions of Phrygia - a review of data presented by Elsa Gibson). I have also followed up on every reference mentioned in this forum of Stark's citations from people in this forum who have read this book.

On the basis of the research I have conducted so far I am reasonably sure that I have covered most ---- but perhaps not all ---- of the citations used by Stark to "ancient historical sources". In the ground that I have covered, nothing has stood up to common sense scrutiny.

If you can give me a list of important evidence cited by Stark which I have not already dealt with, I would be impressed, and I might even be found to be entirely wrong about my thesis that the Josephan "Nation of Christians" preceeded Constantine to the planet Earth.

We will see. Show me any element on the list of evidence cited by Stark which I have not already covered in an exhaustive review of the evidence I have already assembled. When you cite that element of evidence be prepared to argue that it represents unambiguous evidence by which any person imbued with at least a little common sense and objectivity might argue it represents evidence for "A Close Encounter with Early Christianity of the Canonical Kind".

Conversely, start with the Prosenes Inscription in Rome and have a read of what Stark might happen to write about this. Does he cite it as "Christian"?